Home Group Limited (202230420)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230420

Home Group Limited

13 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of recharges at the end of the resident’s tenancy.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord, a housing association, from September 2020. In September 2021 the resident and his family moved out of the property suddenly because of serious anti-social behaviour (ASB). They did not return and the resident gave up the tenancy, which ended in December 2021. The property was a 4 bedroom house.
The resident was a joint tenant with his wife. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communication with the resident and his wife are referred to as being with the resident.

Policy and legal framework

The resident’s tenancy agreement said that the property should be emptied of all possessions before the keys were returned to the landlord.
The landlord’s rechargeable repairs policy at the time said that:
1. A rechargeable repair was work which was needed due to wilful neglect or damage by the resident. This included works required as a result of an accident, works to vacant properties that were not left to its required standard and works to put right, repair or remove home improvements made by the resident.
2. Exceptional circumstances could include where the customer was vulnerable and not able to carry out the repairs.
The landlord’s complaints leaflet for resident’s said that it would not normally consider complaints about things that had happened more than 6 months ago. Some issues, such as injury, would be handled outside of its complaints process through its insurance team. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Where it needed longer, it would update the resident and give a date when it would respond.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy at the time said that it may pay discretionary compensation as a result of service failure. An insurance claim should be made when a resident suffered injury where they believed the landlord was negligent or at fault.

Summary of events

In November 2021 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had given notice to end his tenancy. It said that a pre-termination inspection had not been carried out due to the circumstances. It advised that there would be a charge for any damage caused to the property that had not been repaired to its satisfaction and to clear any items of furniture or rubbish left.
The resident’s tenancy ended on 6 December 2021 and, 2 days later, the landlord inspected the property and identified there had been personal items and rubbish left in the property and garden, internal doors needed replacing and there was damage to some areas. The landlord noted that these issues may be eligible for recharges.
The landlord told the resident in March 2022 about former tenant arrears owing and asked for payment to be made. The resident replied querying why he owed this amount and asked for a breakdown. The landlord explained that, in addition to rent arrears, there was an amount of over £2,000 for rechargeable repairs. It provided photos and a breakdown of the items it had charged for.
The following month the landlord confirmed that there had been no rent charged from the resident moving out of the property in September 2021 to the tenancy ending in December 2021. The rent arrears were for rent prior to September 2021. The amount charged for the repairs was correct as these were the works required. It asked if he wanted to raise a formal complaint, which he did on 5 May 2022 and asked for the recharges to be removed.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 8 June 2022 and said that a response would be provided in 10 working days. Five days later the resident replied that he wanted to make a “claim for damages” for the emotional impact caused by the landlord’s handling of this situation.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It agreed that, due to him having to leave the property suddenly, the recharges for the property and garden clearance would be removed. The charges for the damage caused would remain as the items were damaged beyond reasonable repair and so rechargeable to him. He could make a claim for the emotional impact this situation had on him via its insurance team and provided their contact details and the information he would need to provide in order to make a claim.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 August 2022. He had experienced serious ASB from a number of other residents in the area, which he had reported to the landlord. When he moved into the property there were a number of repair issues he reported but the landlord delayed in resolving. The internal doors were thin and flimsy but instead of reporting this to the landlord, he decided to rectify this himself and ordered new doors. The frames were not straight and so the doors did not fit and he had to do work to resolve this before the new doors could be fitted. He did not finish this before he had to leave the property because of the ASB. He had been housed in the property by the landlord as an “experiment”, against the advice of the Police, and its actions had caused him and his family stress, harm and resulted in ongoing mental health issues. The landlord had failed in its handling of these matters and was negligent. He wanted a satisfactory resolution, which he believed was for all the debt to be removed.
The same day the resident submitted an insurance claim to the landlord, which it acknowledged receipt of the following day and told him it had sent to its insurance company for review.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 29 September 2022. It apologised for the delay and explained this was due to the current volume of escalation requests. On the same day, the landlord said in an internal email that the repair concerns raised by the resident were from 2021 and so out of the 6 month timeframe to raise as a complaint.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It accepted that the resident was unable to put right the repair issues identified in the property as he had ended his tenancy earlier than expected. It agreed to remove the recharges on that basis and apologised for any inconvenience or concern caused.
Ten days later the resident acknowledged that the recharges had been removed but asked for a response to his insurance claim. The landlord replied that, as he was requesting compensation for suffering and mental and emotional harm, this would be handled by its insurance team, outside of its complaints process. It confirmed that it had asked its insurers to look at his claim for injury and they would be in touch shortly.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord confirmed that the recharge for repairs had been removed from the account. There was an amount outstanding for rent arrears, that was already on the account before he had moved out and it asked him to pay this. The resident replied that he was contesting all charges because of what the landlord had put him through. He believed the landlord owed him compensation, which it could use to clear the outstanding amount.
In November 2022 and March 2023 there was communication between the resident and the landlord’s insurers regarding his claim for damages. The resident advised that this Service was investigating his complaint and he would be back in touch with them once this process was complete.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs and ASB during the course of his tenancy. While he raised these issues with the landlord as part of his escalation request in August 2022, the landlord did not investigate and respond to these matters under its complaints procedure, due to the amount of time that had passed since the issues had occurred. This reflects the Ombudsman’s own position on complaints being raised in a timely manner.
As these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, they are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider (in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). Therefore, these matters are not assessed in this report. However, the landlord’s complaint handling, including its lack of response to these concerns, has been assessed below.
The resident told the landlord that these issues have had a negative effect on his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the ill-health of the resident and his family. From the evidence provided, the resident is already in contact with the landlord’s insurers about making a personal injury claim and he may wish to seek independent advice about progressing this if he still considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of recharges at the end of the resident’s tenancy

The landlord was entitled to recharge the resident for clearing the property and carrying out repairs to damaged items, in line with its rechargeable repairs policy, as detailed above. However, the landlord was aware that the resident had left the property suddenly because of serious ASB, but there is no record that it considered this prior to the formal complaint investigation.
Experiencing serious ASB can be a form of vulnerability and so it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider this as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ as it committed to in its rechargeable repairs policy. While appropriate that it considered this as part of the formal complaint investigation, it should not have taken a formal complaint being made for the landlord to properly follow its policy.
Its failure to do this amounts to maladministration and resulted in the resident being sent an unexpected bill for over £2,000, which was distressing for him. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on its rechargeable repairs policy, with specific focus on exceptional circumstances and considering vulnerability, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.
When the resident gave notice to end his tenancy, the landlord warned him about possible recharges. While appropriate that it does this in most cases, considering the resident’s individual circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider being flexible with the resident about the condition of the property in recognition of the difficult and upsetting situation that it knew he was in.
It was understandable in this case that the landlord did not carry out a pre-termination inspection of the property and it explained its reasons for this when the resident gave notice to end the tenancy. However, following the landlord’s inspection of the property after the tenancy ended, it could have done more to discuss the issues identified with the resident before making the decision to recharge him. This was particularly important as it was aware of the reason he had been staying away from the property and that he had left suddenly.
As part of the stage 2 escalation request, the resident gave an understandable and reasonable explanation regarding the condition of the doors, which contributed to the landlord’s decision to remove the recharges. Had the landlord made more effort to engage with the resident following its inspection, it could have been made aware of this sooner and avoided the additional upset and distress caused to the resident by sending him the large recharge bill.
In addition to the rechargeable repair amount, the landlord has asked the resident to pay back an amount for unpaid rent arrears. The landlord has explained that this amount was for a period before he left the property in September 2021 and so it is reasonable that the landlord expect payment of this amount.
When the resident told the landlord that he wanted to make a claim for damages in June 2022, it told him this would need to be made via an insurance claim, which was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy, as detailed above. The landlord, like the Ombudsman, is not itself equipped to make an assessment of whether the landlord was negligent or directly responsible for his and his family’s ill-health and so it was appropriate that it referred this matter to a specialist agency for consideration.
While appropriate that it referred this matter to its insurers, the landlord should also have considered whether any discretionary compensation was required in recognition of any service failure, as committed in its compensation policy. The landlord’s complaint responses are unclear on whether it accepted there was service failure in its handling of this matter. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that there was for the reasons set out above and that this caused detriment to the resident. Therefore, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident pay him £300 compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 30 working days and its stage 2 response in 53 working days, which were over the committed response times set out in its complaints leaflet, as detailed above. At both stages the landlord acknowledged the complaints, but this was more than a month after the complaint was received at stage 1 and nearly 2 months after the complaint was received at stage 2.
From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord provided any other updates to the resident during the periods of delay. The delays and lack of updates amount to maladministration and would have left the resident feeling as though the landlord was not taking the matter seriously. In light of this, orders have been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation.
As part of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 he raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of ASB and repairs, but the landlord did not address these concerns within its final response. The landlord was not obligated to provide a response as part of the stage 2 process as the issues had not been considered at stage 1, however, it should have explained this to the resident and advised him whether it would address his concerns via a separate complaint.
The records show that the landlord considered the repair concerns at the time, as it noted in an internal email that these were outside of the 6 month timeframe to be dealt with as a complaint, which was in line with its complaints leaflet and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). While this decision was reasonable, it should have explained this to the resident so he understood why it would not investigate or respond to his concerns. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its complaints policy and the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. handling of recharges at the end of the resident’s tenancy.
2. complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take into account the resident’s exceptional circumstances when it decided to recharge him. It was aware that he had left the property suddenly due to serious ASB but failed to take this into account until after the resident made a formal complaint. It was understandable that the landlord could not complete a pre-termination inspection to identify the repair issues, but it could have done more to contact the resident after it identified these issues to understand the full circumstances, before making the decision to recharge him. Its failure to consider all of the circumstances meant that the resident was sent a large bill, which caused upset and worry. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident’s personal injury claim to its insurers but it should also have considered whether any discretionary compensation was required as part of the complaints process.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were delayed. While it acknowledged both complaints, these were also delayed and there is no evidence of any other updates being provided during this time. The resident raised additional concerns as part of his stage 2 escalation and while the landlord was not obligated to respond to these, it should have explained this. The records show that the landlord did consider his concerns regarding repairs and determined that these were outside of the timeframe to be considered as a complaint but it failed to tell him this, which would have left him feeling ignored.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of recharges at the end of his tenancy and his formal complaint.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation, made up of £300 for its handling of recharges at the end of the resident’s tenancy and £200 for complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
1. Its rechargeable repairs policy, with specific focus on consideration of exceptional circumstances and vulnerability, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights regarding the definition of vulnerability – ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. Complaint handling in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks.